"THE PUBLIUS ENIGMA: Newly Revealed Evidence Establishes That President James Madisons Administration Required Citizen Parentage To Qualify Native-Born Persons For U.S. Citizenship.

I was recently forwarded an incredibly amazing article from the October 10, 1811 edition of The Alexandria Herald newspaper. RXSID of Free Republic sent it with a brief note, stating, Check out this case. The Herald article is entitled, The Case of James McClure. The author is PUBLIUS.

Publius was the pseudonym used by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, for their anonymous authorship of The Federalist Papers. By 1811, Hamilton was dead and Jay retired. My research leads me to believe that the article was written by James Madison, but this has not been conclusively established yet. Regardless of authorship, Madison was President at the time the article was written, and it discusses the official position of his administration denying U.S. citizenship based upon simple birth in the country.

The official position of the Madison administration was that persons born in the U.S. to alien parents were not U.S. citizens. This was the ruling concerning James McClure, despite the fact that his parents had been settled in the country for many years prior to his birth. The article makes clear that the United States Minister to France, General Armstrong, refused diplomatic protection for McClure by denying he was a citizen of the United States.

This was the official decision despite McClure having been born in South Carolina in 1785 to a father who was naturalized months later in 1786. Armstrong informed the French authorities that the man was not a U.S. citizen, and McClure was left in French custody. The article by PUBLIUS indicates that Armstrong might have mis-applied the 1802 Naturalization Act, but PUBLIUS also makes clear that McClure was not a citizen by virtue of his native birth in South Carolina:

There was no statute in South Carolina in 1785 which granted citizenship to persons born there similar to Virginias statute mentioned in the article by PUBLIUS. Simply being a son of the soil was not enough, and this evidence repudiates the contention that the British common law had been adapted in all of the states after the revolution. Since there was no statute in place making those born in South Carolina citizens, McClure was not held to be a native-born citizen. That argument was utterly rejected throughout the affair.

The article goes on to question whether the 1802 act is defective in that PUBLIUS seems to believe citizenship ought to be revoked for naturalized persons who return to their original country and establish domicile there again. But the article makes clear that Madisons administration steadfastly denied that simple birth in the United States was enough to establish citizenship. This, of course, discredits the conclusions of Justice Horace Gray in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, as well as the infamous New York Chancery opinion of Lynch v. Clark. Both cases contain erroneous assumptions that the British common law rule of jus soli governed citizenship from the very genesis of the United States.

I tracked down the original article published in the Richmond Enquirer on October 1, 1811, which was then republished in The Alexandria Gazette on October 10, 1811. Both of these newspapers were published in Virginia, Madisons home state. Furthermore, the PUBLIUS penned article was the grand finale of nearly a year-long argument which went viral in various newspapers of the day starting in January 1811.

I have been up and down the East Coast tracking down the remaining newspaper articles on this as well as other supporting historical information. I have also consulted with professionals and am preparing an extensive section for my forthcoming book which details everything that has been unearthed.

The whole story cannot be understood by way of online searches. The internet is barren on this case. Some of the necessary information isnt even available in the Library of Congress or National Archives.

The Courts,Including the Supreme Court are not going to touch this case with a ten foot poll.Afterall the Ninth Circuit has already said that the American People have No standing in Bringing these cases against Obama.

Unfortunately the Government will have standing in bringing all of these devious laws into being and using the Point of a gun or the threat of imprisonment to enforce them on us.

This country is in so much trouble.

8
posted on 12/28/2011 5:59:33 PM PST
by puppypusher
(The World is going to the dogs.)

“The whole story cannot be understood by way of online searches. The internet is barren on this case. Some of the necessary information isnt even available in the Library of Congress or National Archives. “

I have read various articles of the years which indicated that those ‘in government’ have been removing any references or legal decisions that interfere with ‘current liberal understanding’ of ‘the law’.

I apologize; in re-reading my response, I came off pretty harsh. I just get frustrated over the issue of whether this has been ruled on or not. It clearly has, so much so that nefarious forces have seen fit to scrub online resources for the SCOTUS cases in question.

It's more of a stretch than that. If one actually reads the article linked the author references the "Act of 1802" and quotes the Naturalization Act

The children of persons duly naturalized under any of the laws of the United States, or who, previous to the passing of any law on that subject by the Government of the United States, may have become citizens of any one of the said States under the laws thereof, being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of their parents being so naturalized or admitted to the rights of citizenship, shall, if dwelling in the United States, be considered as citizens of the United States, and the children of persons who now are, or have been citizens of the United States shall, though born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, be considered as citizens of the United States: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never resided within the United States.

The author "Publius" also says "In my judgement, our minister erred in his decision - & Mr. McClure ought to have been held as a citizen of the United States." He goes on to suggest that the law should be amended, but is clear that "We are not considering what the law ought to be, but what it is."

One must conclude that either Donofrio didn't actually read this article very well, or is dissembling about what it contains. I'll assume the original poster was misled by Donofrio's comments and did not read the article at the link.

I do not see Leo’s direct conclusion(s) and find myself left to draw my own. Is this to suppose an indirect inference into the intent of the Federalist Papers rendering “ British common law rule of jus soli governed citizenship from the very genesis of the United States” invalid?

The author "Publius" also says "In my judgement, our minister erred in his decision - & Mr. McClure ought to have been held as a citizen of the United States." He goes on to suggest that the law should be amended, but is clear that "We are not considering what the law ought to be, but what it is."

The error (as explained in the text) is on the basis of the naturalization of the father, not place of birth. It's very clear that place of birth is not sufficient to create citizenship for the children of foreigners. This rejects English common law ... and it does so by stressing a right of expatriation which is NOT part of common law.

You are not. I am a fan of Spaulding's posts also. They're usually lengthy but worth the time.

That said, the main takeaway of this piece is that it serves to point up the fact that at this cited historical juncture, just plain citizenship of children born to one or more aliens on US soil was contested, if not outright denied, let alone Natural Born citizenship, an issue which was addressed soundly in Minor vs Happersett:

At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.

Sounds pretty plain to me, what the description of a Natural Born Citizen is. Presuming Barry is telling the truth about his origins (which he very well could not be), he would not be eligible to presidential office unless SCOTUS were to rule otherwise, so as to remove the doubts. Remember, we're talking about the most powerful office in the world; when you're determining presumed loyalty to the country, and hence eligibility, you don't want doubts.

No problem. I quite agree that this issue has not been definitively ruled on or not.

Although the Wong case and others to my mind lean pretty heavily towards the jus soli side, there is still plenty of room for the court to rule in favor of jus sanguinis without actually overruling itself.

It seems, to me, that in general it’s the birther types who insist that the definition of NBC is self-evident.

IOW, group A has always been considered NBC. Some have questioned group B's right to that status, which is why we need a Court ruling on whether those doubts are correct.

At the time of the Founding, it is reasonably clear that a child born on American soil to an American citizen father and a mother of foreign birth but not naturalized would have been considered NBC, but not if the parents' status were reversed.

Such sex-based distinctions have been largely or completely eliminated in our society. Do such changes mean the definition of NBC also changes?

‘When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdoms dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.s children.”

Sex-based distinctions might have been largely or completely eliminated in our society, but such changes can’t change the law that was at work at time of obama’s birth!

Which just ruins it for the rest of us who want to believe the 14th Amendment did not really create a new standard but rather restated an older one that did not give citizenship to anchor babies.

This discovery makes it look like there really was a previous standard of not doing so and that it was changed by the 14th.

It was NOT changed by the 14th. It was changed by the way Liberal Judges started applying the law from the 1960s onward. Eisenhower Deported hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants and did not recognize their "Anchor Babies" when doing so.

HA! You are pathetically trying to spin it. As a matter of fact, the TRUTH does override court decisions. Any decisions in conflict with the truth were wrongly decided. (Which is my position from the very beginning)

Other examples of WRONGLY decided court decisions are Kelo v New London and Roe v Wade. Anyone who thinks the courts are infallible is an idiot.

I apologize; in re-reading my response, I came off pretty harsh. I just get frustrated over the issue of whether this has been ruled on or not. It clearly has, so much so that nefarious forces have seen fit to scrub online resources for the SCOTUS cases in question.

No offense intended.

You shouldn't apologize. That twit has long been considered to be a troll.

The Court needs to rule on whether the 14th's language has any bearing on what is meant by NBC in Article II.

They did already in Minor v. Happersett and U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark:

In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens."

In construing the 14th amendment, the Constitution (of which the 14th amendment is a part) does NOT define natural-born citizenship. Minor made it very clear that persons who were already recognized as citizens (by virtue of being born in the country to citizen parents) did NOT need the 14th amendment to confer their citizenship.

... in our opinion, it did not need this amendment to give them that position. Before its adoption the Constitution of the United States did not in terms prescribe who should be citizens of the United States or of the several States, yet there were necessarily such citizens without such provision.

Further, the syllabus emphasizes that as much SINCE the adoption of the 14th amendment, that such persons are recognized as citizens because of the NBC criteria. This part of the syllabus is quoted verbatim in Ex Parte Lockwood.

2. In that sense, women, of born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, have always been considered citizens of the United States, as much so before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution as since.

IOW, the 14th does not affect nor define natural-born citizenship. The Minor decision was unanimous, and because of their lack of dissent, Justice Gray noted in Wong Kim Ark that the Supreme Court was:

... committed to the view that all children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of foreign States were excluded from the operation of the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment ...

All children, born in the U.S. of citizen parents were EXCLUDED from the operation of the citizenship clause of the 14th amendment. In case there's any question, the definition of NBC was specifically offered to satisfy the meaning of the term in Article II:

This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides [n6] that "no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President," [n7] and that Congress shall have power "to establish a uniform rule of naturalization." Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.

Justice Waite gives two separate classes of how one might be recognized as a citizen by birth, but ONLY ONE was characterized as natural born citizens: all children born in the cuontry to citizen parents. As we all know, this precludes Obama from being a natural-born citizen, even if he were born in the Oval Office.

The author "Publius" also says "In my judgement, our minister erred in his decision - & Mr. McClure ought to have been held as a citizen of the United States." He goes on to suggest that the law should be amended, but is clear that "We are not considering what the law ought to be, but what it is."

A related bit of information includes this effort in congress to bar citizenship for the children of Aliens that leave the country.

I do not see Leos direct conclusion(s) and find myself left to draw my own. Is this to suppose an indirect inference into the intent of the Federalist Papers rendering  British common law rule of jus soli governed citizenship from the very genesis of the United States invalid?

It is to point out that the rules for being considered a citizen of a State are not necessarily the same as those required to be a Federal citizen.

State citizens could be created by Jus Soli,(as in Virginia after 1792. Prior to 1792, they had to be Jus Sanguinus to be a citizen of Virginia. New York passed a law in 1845 requiring Jus Sanguinus to be a citizen.) but apparently Jus Sanguinus (or naturalization) is required for possessing Federal Citizenship.

This is a simple point of logic that should help people understand why the founders used natural-born citizen for the presidential requirement. They wanted a universal definition that was not subject (pardon the pun) to the whims of different state laws, and also not dependent on British common law, which they needed to reject in order to legally declare themselves to be U.S. citizens.

Vattel gave a very clear definition of natural citizenship that they would have been familiar with, plus they translated the French word "naturel" (as used by Vattel) as "natural-born" ... meaning they would have read his principles on naturel citizens as "natural-born citizens" ... those person who are born in the country to citizen parents. It is a definition for which there is no doubt as the Supreme Court clearly stated nearly 100 years later.

It's very clear that place of birth is not sufficient to create citizenship for the children of foreigners.

No, it's not "very clear," especially since SCOTUS has held otherwise. You may want to believe that, but SCOTUS does not agree, and like it or not, they interpret the law and the Constitution and we're bound by what they decide unless we change the law, the Constitution, or the Court. And since the Court, with four Conservative justices, has consistently declined to hear Donofrio's (and others') cases, I doubt changing the Court would help in this matter. This has been held to be settled law.

What part of "Mr. McClure ought to have been held as a citizen of the United States" are you claiming Publius didn't say?

Thx DL - Isn't " but apparently Jus Sanguinus (or naturalization) is required for possessing Federal Citizenship" the "whole argument" in question?Does this fortify the argument by drawing the "intended" and by extrapolation the required or mandated differentiation between States Citizens and National Citizens?I'm not trying to be a pinhead here it's just that the language often confounds me.I wish to be on firm footing with my arguments.You Go Leo!

You point out it is an "effort" but show no evidence it ever passed, so I assume it didn't. The history of Congress is littered with "efforts" that go nowhere and thus are not law.

This quote (no specific cite that I see, I assume from Congressional Globe?)

The committee on the Judiciary be instructed to inquire into the expediency of so amending the law on the subject of naturalization as to exclude those from the privileges of natural-born citizens who are or shall be born of parents who have been removed or shall remove from the United States...

could have interesting implications. The Congressman doesn't specify that he is speaking of children of citizens, as opposed to those born on US soil of aliens (in which case he acknowledges they have privileges of natural born citizens.)

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.